So, analogizing your examples, you think "Given that libertarian X believes a child becomes a legal person is prior to birth" is a logical fallacy? Ie, it's impossible for a libertarian to believe that an unborn child is a legal person?

It's impossible for them to believe the child is LEGALLY a person. It's very possible for them to believe the child is a person. That can be their opinion/point of view. In fact there are libertarians who feel that way.

The logical fallacy involved is called "begging the question". It is circular logic. You are saying it is legally a person in order to make it legally a person. That's why we established it's an opinion earlier.

So if it being an opinion does not matter to you that moves you closer to totalitarian. So if you have some libertarian views mixed with that, it puts you in the middle of the spectrum.

I think it's the same issue, as with socialism.

You have two categories. right wing, and not right wing. Right wing=not socialist, not right wing=socialist. Then you have libertarian and totalitarian. If it is not a dictatorial agenda, you call it libertarian.

My evidence for that are your posts where the slightest deviation from a certain specific political view, is an extreme opposite.

The only problem with that is that doesn't jive with the definition of those words, like socialism and libertarian.

What I think you mean, is "Ron Paul does not lean towards totalitarianism at all". I agree, he is not totalitarian at all.

When you talk about socialist agendas and such, I think you mean something like this. "Obama's policies are not as far to the right as the Republicans, or tea party, or my views". Or "Obama is supporting legislation a little to the left of the politicians I support, or what I think is right." I would agree with that. He is definitely doing exactly that.

That's why I say, the Congressional minority leaders of both houses are a little further to the right than their Democratic counterparts. They are also way further to the authoritarian right than I like, However I do not say they are fascist totalitarian dictators enacting their draconian Nazi-like policies and waging their Holocaust against the poor and middle class.

That is because the first two statements are true, and the last is factually incorrect hyperbolic bull$H17. I don't know if you are going to see that it is analogous to your rhetoric, but I can assure you it is.

So, analogizing your examples, you think "Given that libertarian X believes a child becomes a legal person is prior to birth" is a logical fallacy? Ie, it's impossible for a libertarian to believe that an unborn child is a legal person?

It's impossible for them to believe the child is LEGALLY a person.

Interesting - so now the question is why do you have that opinion? I think most libertarians would disagree with you, in that it's reasonable to be 100% in favor of individual liberty, and to also have an opinion recognizing that the unborn count as individuals capable of liberty.

What is it about being unborn that, for you, makes you believe that the child cannot be a person? Does being born suddenly change that, or is there some age after birth at which the child first acquires individual liberties and legal person status?

Interesting - so now the question is why do you have that opinion? I think most libertarians would disagree with you, in that it's reasonable to be 100% in favor of individual liberty, and to also have an opinion recognizing that the unborn count as individuals capable of liberty.

Uhmmm... silly. Political philosophy is irrelevant. Currently, in the US, and probably other countries, the unborn are not "legal persons". Remember: this is a matter of law, not morals.

frogbyte wrote:

What is it about being unborn that, for you, makes you believe that the child cannot be a person? Does being born suddenly change that, or is there some age after birth at which the child first acquires individual liberties and legal person status?

Well, now you are changing terms.

Do you mean to ask about a "...makes you believe that the child cannot be a person"? Or "...makes you believe that the child are not legal person"?

Not that when challenging what ironman actually said, you the you switched "are not" to "cannot be" and dropped the "legal". These are important changes.

No one but an utterly mistaken person can believe they currently arelegal persons. Because, the unborn clearly are not "legal persons".

Possibly, the law could change, in which case the unborn might be recognized (by the law) to be legal persons. (Heck, the law could be changed to recognize ducks or monkeys as "legal persons". It probably won't. But this would be a legal status-- not a moral one.)

I suspect you need to learn to word your discussion to separate what "is" from what could be, and to separate the question of what is recognized by the law from what one might recognize as a moral notion. After you learn that, you can learn to ask questions that are not utterly silly.

Because: Yes, the law could be changed to recognize the unborn to be a legal person. However, American law (and as far as I am aware, those of other countries) currently does not recognize them as such. Any libertarian, conservative, liberal, commie or anything else who thinks the unborn are "legal persons" is simply hallucinating.

Actually, "the unborn clearly are not legal persons" is not completely true. The unborn do have some legal standing with regards to battery/murder in the US.

You're continuously missing the point though by getting sidetracked. Personhood is derived from our inherent humanity, not from laws. Laws can change, but the principles of individual liberty should be constant. If X is a person, then it -should- legally be a person. If it's not, the law is in a state contrary to that of libertarian principles, such as it was prior to Emancipation.

So, analogizing your examples, you think "Given that libertarian X believes a child becomes a legal person is prior to birth" is a logical fallacy? Ie, it's impossible for a libertarian to believe that an unborn child is a legal person?

It's impossible for them to believe the child is LEGALLY a person.

Interesting - so now the question is why do you have that opinion? I think most libertarians would disagree with you, in that it's reasonable to be 100% in favor of individual liberty, and to also have an opinion recognizing that the unborn count as individuals capable of liberty.

What is it about being unborn that, for you, makes you believe that the child cannot be a person? Does being born suddenly change that, or is there some age after birth at which the child first acquires individual liberties and legal person status?

No that is not the question. Where in the world are you getting that? Legal, means under the law, not personal opinion. It's exactly what I said in my last post.

Now in the second paragraph you have gone to a completely different topic. There you are asking my opinion about it. I'll tell you what I think, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Let me start with the second question. No age isn't the point. Birth just takes the mother out of the equation. What makes the child a person is brain development. When they have the capability of some sort of self awareness. Development of a CNS and ability to feel pain should be a factor as well. It's really not developed to that point until the end of the 2nd trimester.

That leaves the final trimester. This is simply a case of a straw man. There are virtually no ELECTIVE, 3rd trimester abortions. The delay tactics and road blocks of conservatives could change that to a small degree. However nearly all of these fairly rare abortions are done for a medical reason. It is done to save the mothers life. It was a child she wanted to have, so it's not much of a choice.

So that is what my view is based on. As a libertarian, albeit a left wing one, I detest black markets, and value the reproductive liberty of women. Therefore it is not something the government has any business poking it's nose in. That and other such views are what puts me in the libertarian category. The separate economic sort of views are what puts me on the left.

Actually, "the unborn clearly are not legal persons" is not completely true. The unborn do have some legal standing with regards to battery/murder in the US.

You're continuously missing the point though by getting sidetracked. Personhood is derived from our inherent humanity, not from laws. Laws can change, but the principles of individual liberty should be constant. If X is a person, then it -should- legally be a person. If it's not, the law is in a state contrary to that of libertarian principles, such as it was prior to Emancipation.

By the way you are changing definitions again here. The "inherent humanity" bit is the opinion part, the legal part is separate, which you state here, but conveniently don't understand at other times.

Let me start with the second question. No age isn't the point. Birth just takes the mother out of the equation. What makes the child a person is brain development. When they have the capability of some sort of self awareness. Development of a CNS and ability to feel pain should be a factor as well. It's really not developed to that point until the end of the 2nd trimester.

Maybe we're finally getting somewhere, not sure. So, you acknowledge that personhood to some extent can exist prior to birth, given a time of sufficient development? I can understand the position that the mother's liberties simply supersede the child's liberties. That's a fairly common pro-abortion position - is that yours?

Also, no I'm not changing definitions. Inherent humanity "ie, natural law", is (or should be where it fails to be) the basis for all legal statute.

Actually, "the unborn clearly are not legal persons" is not completely true. The unborn do have some legal standing with regards to battery/murder in the US.

Not in the states where I live. :)

In any case, they have no right to enter contracts, vote, own property, nor rights of citizenship. So, they aren't legal persons. They might be something, and there might be laws governing how they are treated (just as there are laws for the treatment of animals) but they sure don't seem like legal people to me.

But then we are back to what makes a person a legal person, aren't we?

frogbyte wrote:

You're continuously missing the point though by getting sidetracked. Personhood is derived from our inherent humanity, not from laws.

Go back and reread what Ironman wrote and your response. He said "It's impossible for them to believe the child is LEGALLY a person."And then you went of track and asked him

Quote:

"Interesting - so now the question is why do you have that opinion? I think most libertarians would disagree with you, in that it's reasonable to be 100% in favor of individual liberty, and to also have an opinion recognizing that the unborn count as individuals capable of liberty. "

When saying most libertarians would disagree with him, you edited out the LEGALLY, which he not only wrote but typed in all caps!

Note that Ironman wrote in response:

Quote:

Now in the second paragraph you have gone to a completely different topic. There you are asking my opinion about it. I'll tell you what I think, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

And I wrote:

Quote:

Well, now you are changing terms.

Do you mean to ask about a "...makes you believe that the child cannot be a person"? Or "...makes you believe that the child are not legal person"?

Not that when challenging what ironman actually said, you the you switched "are not" to "cannot be" and dropped the "legal". These are important changes.

My pointing out that you changed the subject isn't derailing or missing your point. It's pointing out you changed the subject-- and did so in a by mischaracterizing what Ironman said.

If you want to talk about the inherent humanity of people, fine. But stop putting words in peoples mouths. Stop complaining that people are getting sidetracked when they happen to notice you are mistating people's points.

Quote:

Inherent humanity "ie, natural law", is (or should be where it fails to be) the basis for all legal statute.

Well, actually, this claim is an opinion and a rather silly one. Lots of people don't think natural law either is, or should be, the basis for all legal statue. What's natural law say about the speed limit? That cars can't go faster than the speed of light?

Quote:

Maybe we're finally getting somewhere, not sure. So, you acknowledge that personhood to some extent can exist prior to birth, given a time of sufficient development?

Uhmmm... Ironman's post says nothing about diagnosing "personhood" and does not acknowledge "personhood" prior to birth!

If X is a person, then X should legally be a person, and if X is not legally a person in precinct Y, then there's a legal aberration waiting to be rectified in precinct Y. Again you're sidetracking into uninteresting axioms.

How about you let him answer though whether that's what he meant by "It's really not developed to that point until the end of the 2nd trimester."

Two points: 1) The previous is nothing more than a statement of your opinion.

2) The precise definition of "legal person" will affect an individuals opinion about whether a particular "person" ought to be a "legal person." (For example: I don't think 4 year olds ought to have the right to vote or enter contracts. Yet, I would think the term "legal person", ought to apply to a person who has the right to do these things. But maybe that's not your definition - other than a law decreeing someone is a "legal person", I have no idea what collections of rights or obligations you think a " legal person" might have and so can't begin to say whether I agree or disagree with your opinion above. )

3) Even as your opinion statement stands, "should be" does not mean "is"-- (please scroll back and see you were previously discussing whether or not the unborn "are" legal persons.)

Quote:

and if X is not legally a person in precinct Y, then there's a legal aberration waiting to be rectified in precinct Y.

Well, once again, this is an opinion.

Quote:

Again you're sidetracking into uninteresting axioms.

I'm unaware of having put forward any axioms-- interesting or otherwise.

Quote:

How about you let him answer though whether that's what he meant by "It's really not developed to that point until the end of the 2nd trimester."

I'd be happy to let ironman tell us what he thinks. So far, he's said the fetus is certainly not a person until at least the 2nd trimester. He hasn't said anything about whether it might be a person later.

My impression based on what he wrote is he thinks that, with regard to legality of abortion, issue of whether or not the fetus is a person in the 3rd trimester moot. At that point, it's generally illegal to abort a fetus and virtually none are performed. It's illegal whether or not the fetus is a person. But, of course, that may not be what he meant, so I'm not going to tell him he said that.

I should also like to remind you: I was suggesting you wait before assuming his answer to your own question and putting words in his mouth. Your responding by telling me I don't know what he will say is bit silly of you. Of course I don't know. That doesn't mean you should be putting words in his mouth!

Just be cause something is a person in someones opinion, does not mean they are such under the law. I don't know why you can't understand the difference between holding a view on something and holding an additional view that it should be made into law.

Where is that not clear? Libertarian X believes life begins at conception but does not hold the view that it should be put into law. See, 2 different things. If the person did think it should be law, they would not be libertarian, BY DEFINITION. It is what the word means.

I think a fetus probably is a person after the 2nd trimester is over. However the mothers life takes priority. As people don't want to have abortions that late, 3rd trimester abortions are a moot point. So there isn't even a good argument to want to intrude on a woman's medical liberty at that point.

Furthermore, we have evidence that black markets are a bad thing. So that is another reason not to criminalize it. I would like ALL abortions to be reduced as much as possible. However I think the only way to really do that is to prevent unintentional pregnancy by education and providing contraception.

So that's my view on it, but again that is separate from the definition of the word "libertarian".

So, then, just to be clear, Ironman, you acknowledge that personhood to some extent can exist prior to birth, given a time of sufficient development. Given that, why not allow for the law to recognize that personhood, ie, battery on a 8 month pregnant woman could also result in a battery charge for the unborn child? How is the libertarian recognizing the legal personhood of the unborn child, and allowing for an additional battery charge for that legal person, in any way contrary to the principles of limited government and individual liberties?

("I'm unaware of having put forward any axioms-- interesting or otherwise." - Yes, that's clear. Please just stop responding, as all of your responses are either wrong, irrelevant, or useless to the discussion, which is otherwise interesting.)

How is the libertarian recognizing the legal personhood of the unborn child, and allowing for an additional battery charge for that legal person, in any way contrary to the principles of limited government and individual liberties?

Why do you keep trying to make this about libertarians and then ask questions that make it obvious you simply don't understand the criteria that would motivate a libertarian to favor making an law at all?

There are all sorts of reasons a libertarian would be against:

1) Creating an unnecessary law that makes it illegal to do something already illegal. (Beating the woman is already illegal)
2) Making a law that is unnecessary on its own-- i.e. harming an unborn child.
2) Creating a law that can have the unintentional consequence of giving a huge amount of police power over pregnant woman. (One might define eating poorly "battery" etc.)

To make a law, you have to believe it is necessary for some reason. How would the law you propose be necessary? Recognition of "personhood" isn't sufficient to make it so.

FWIW-- I don't think murder is illegal because people are "persons". My reasoning is entirely different. We could think homo sapiens were souless, "not persons" and I would think unjustified killing should be outlawed--and I could give a reason. It would be pretty long.

So, for me (and I'm not a libertarian) the question of whether the unborn are persons is utterly irrelevant to whether or not we permit abortion, create laws about harming them, or write extra laws making battery of a pregnant woman be battery of both the pregnant woman and the child.

Why do you keep trying to make this about libertarians and then ask questions that make it obvious you simply don't understand the criteria that would motivate a libertarian to favor making an law at all?

That's the million dollar question. That seems to be the case with everything. There is definitely a lack of understanding of the topic.

So, then, just to be clear, Ironman, you acknowledge that personhood to some extent can exist prior to birth, given a time of sufficient development. Given that, why not allow for the law to recognize that personhood, ie, battery on a 8 month pregnant woman could also result in a battery charge for the unborn child? How is the libertarian recognizing the legal personhood of the unborn child, and allowing for an additional battery charge for that legal person, in any way contrary to the principles of limited government and individual liberties?

("I'm unaware of having put forward any axioms-- interesting or otherwise." - Yes, that's clear. Please just stop responding, as all of your responses are either wrong, irrelevant, or useless to the discussion, which is otherwise interesting.)

You do not need not to make determinations about personhood and which opinions are right in the case of assaulting a pregnant woman. Regardless of how far along she is in the pregnancy, the assault is aggravated because the assaulter is also violating her reproductive rights. It is even more so if it is obvious she is pregnant, because it was done knowingly. Such things can cause severe emotional distress to expecting parents. Furthermore there is the possibility of damage if the child survives, which the assaulter should be legally liable for. Even though the pro-criminalization crowd likes to frame it as such, there is no need to delve into such opinions of personhood for this.

So apparently you don't understand how interfering with a woman's rights to her reproductive system is an increase in government control and a decrease in her liberty. Very interesting.

Why are you telling someone to stop responding? It's also interesting that you seem to be guilty of what you are accusing her.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum